Yoko Ono: No, I'm not suing Lennon Murphy over "Lennon."

Earlier this week, I pointed to reports that John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, was said to be planning legal action against with a young singer-songwriter named Lennon Murphy, who sought to trademark the name of her band, "Lennon."

Ms. Ono tells Boing Boing today that the reports (from Fox, NME, TMZ, and others) she was suing Ms. Murphy are untrue -- she just didn't want Murphy to seek an exclusive trademark on "Lennon."

Yoko Ono (yes, really) writes:

Dear Xeni,

A musician named Lennon Murphy is claiming that Yoko Ono has sued her and that Yoko is seeking to stop Lennon Murphy from performing under her name, Lennon Murphy. Both of these claims are untrue.

Several years ago, Lennon Murphy sought Yoko's permission to do her performances under her name, Lennon Murphy. Yoko, of course, did not object to her request. Subsequently, without Yoko's knowledge, Lennon Murphy filed an application in the United States trademark Office requesting the exclusive right to utilize the name "Lennon" for musical performances. Yoko's attorneys asked Lennon Murphy's attorneys and manager to withdraw her registration of exclusivity to the name LENNON for the trademark. Yoko also offered to cover all costs Lennon Murphy had incurred in filing for the trademark. But Lennon Murphy went ahead to register.

Yoko did not sue Lennon Murphy, but sought to stop her from getting the exclusive right to the name Lennon for performance purposes. For that, Yoko's attorneys, simply notified the Trademark office that Yoko did not believe it was fair that Ms. Murphy be granted the exclusive right to the "Lennon" trademark in relation to musical and entertainment services. As you can see, this is a very important issue for Yoko and the Lennon family.

Yoko says: "I am really hurt if people thought that I told a young artist to not use her own name in her performances and had sought to sue her. I did no such thing. I hope this allegation will be cleared."

Another company created a product with a similar name to ours, and filed for trademark protection. We started work filling the USPTO to oppose the trademark, and a c&d notifying the other company of the confusion. One journalist interviewed me and ran a piece. More than forty publications then reported on the situation, quoting and interpreting the original journalists story.

The next day I start getting phonecalls from friends asking me if I’ve gone crazy… as journals and newsfeeds everywhere report that my company has filed a lawsuit against a gigantic tech company.

The moral of my story: There are 4 sides to every story. Person A, Person B, the Truth, and shit the media makes up.

What I LOVE about modern blogs and industry reporting, is that almost no-one interviews or fact-checks. They just report on other people reporting. It’s like that game ‘telephone’ you played in 1st grade… except it makes everyone involved look like an asshole at some point.

I’m not sure you can blame the failure of democracy on a misunderstanding of the definition of trademark. Since, as others have noted, there was the whole “Yoko Sues Lennon” thing. Headline and article were both pretty inflammatory. Doesn’t justify an army of pitchforks, but then again, I don’t think that’s what anybody was calling for. What’s that line about journalists? The only profession that’s expected to learn everything about anything between 9 and 5? Something like that. It’s true; the world is way too big for even a reasonably educated person to know as much as they need to about anything. I’m sorry for my ignorance. But.

Anyway, this is a relief to hear. Everything I’ve heard/seen of Yoko made me think she was cooler than the article implied she was being. So, yay. Lose a little faith in humanity, gain a little faith in humanity.

as a person born with the last name “lennon”, i find lennon murphy’s actions a tad … self-centered and obnoxious.

perhaps she should spend more time working on her “art” and less time worrying about her name. if her talent is outstanding enough that she’s what comes to mind when people think of the word “lennon” it won’t matter who owns the name, will it?

as a person born with the last name “lennon”, i find lennon murphy’s actions a tad … self-centered and obnoxious.

perhaps she should spend more time working on her “art” and less time worrying about her name. if her talent is outstanding enough that she’s what comes to mind when people think of the word “lennon” it won’t matter who owns the name, will it?

An example of why blogs such as this replacing newspapers as the main source of news people get is so sad.

Its also amazing that everyone was ready to think ill of Yoko. This was John Lennon’s wife. No matter what was said about her being responsible for breaking up the Beatles, which was completely false of course, do you think John loved a witch or bad person for so many years? That he would write songs such as “Oh Yoko” or “Love” for someone not deserving? All of you that trashed her also trash the memory of John Lennon. For shame.

And does anyone have a link to this wench as a suicide girl? Did she ever do nude?

as a person born with the last name “lennon”, i find lennon murphy’s actions a tad … self-centered and obnoxious.

perhaps she should spend more time working on her “art” and less time worrying about her name. if her talent is outstanding enough that she’s what comes to mind when people think of the word “lennon” it won’t matter who owns the name, will it?

The number of factually incorrect statements in the previous post and this one (including the comments) is astounding. This is not complicated at all. It’s all on the USPTO’s website. The following is not conjecture. You just have to know where to find the information, read it, and know what the causes of action are.

I’ll summarize for those with short attention spans:
(1) Lennon Murphy has a very broad registration for the the trademark LENNON that would cover any musical activities of the Lennon family;
(2) A cancellation proceeding before the TTAB, even when successful, has no impact on a person’s ability to use that trademark. The owner just doesn’t have exclusive rights anymore flowing from the registration;
(3) Yoko Ono is asserting both her registrations and her common law rights to LENNON and JOHN LENNON; and
(4) Everything at the USPTO demonstrates that Ono is telling the truth, and Ms. Murphy seriously misunderstands what is going on.

With more detail:
Lennon Murphy is the owner of trademark registration no. 2676604 for use with goods in class 009, including musical sound recordings, and for services in class 041, including “entertainment services in the nature of live performances by a musical group.” This trademark was registered on 01/21/2003.

This registration allows Lennon Murphy to stop anyone else from using a similar trademark, when used in conjunction with goods or services, such that there is a likelihood of confusion in the consuming public between the source of the goods/services.

On its face, and ignoring the various defenses (e.g., priority of use), Lennon Murphy could sue members of the Lennon family for using “Lennon” for entertainment services.

What is startling is that in her declaration during the prosecution of the application, Lennon Murphy stated that her use of LENNON was from 1997 to 2002 for the listed goods and services “substantially exclusive.” That is, she alone was using the trademark LENNON for musical performances. She also declared, “As a result of my extensive use, advertising and promotion of my mark LENNON for over five years, my mark has become distinctive of my services.” In English, this means that, basically, when you hear the trademark LENNON, you think of her goods and services. See < http://tinyurl.com/23v4e5> July 2002 filing.

Yoko Ono is the owner of two registrations (according to the cancellation) for the mark JOHN LENNON used with goods including paper products (Class 16) and eyewear (Class 09).

On January 18, 2008, Yoko One filed a petition to cancel Lennon Murphy’s trademark for LENNON.

This is an important point: cancellation of a trademark has no affect on a party’s ability to use the trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board controls registrations in the USPTO. It does not control use or whether there is infringement, it doesn’t issue injunctions and it doesn’t levy damages. It just controls what is or isn’t registered.

Therefore, based on what is available (i.e., no evidence that Ono filed in District Court for infringement), Lennon Murphy seriously doesn’t understand what is going on, or worse. Moreover, Yoko Ono is attempting to stop Lennon Murphy from using LENNON exclusively for the listed goods and services.

The cancellation asserts, in addition to the registered trademarks, common law rights in LENNON and JOHN LENNON. This is where weldpond is completely wrong. The petition for cancellation states that:
“Petitioner is and has been for many years engaged [sic] the extensive publishing, marketing, advertising, and exploitation of the music and artwork of John Lennon. In connection therewith, petitioner has used in interstate commerce the trademarks LENNON and JOHN LENNON since long prior to registration’s date of first use of the trademark LENNON.”

Like any good attorney, all of Yoko Ono’s rights were asserted, including the ones which have very little bearing (e.g., eyewear).

The grounds for cancellation are “dilution by blurring or tarnishment” (Comment: good luck with that, dilution is very difficult to prove even with recent changes in the law), fraud in obtaining the registration because she didn’t disclose that it was her first name (Comment: They cite 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(4), which applies to marks that are primarily merely surnames. This is for the examiner to determine. Whether or not it’s her first name (not even her surname) is not a “but for” situation. Once again, good luck with that), and also that she wasn’t using the mark in 1997 despite her declaration (Comment: if she wasn’t, and I have no idea, then yeah, canceled).

Final comment, they should have just argued that there was a likelihood of confusion with Yoko Ono’s common law rights to LENNON, which she has priority. They bury that in paragraph 10 under the “Dilution by Blurring or Tarnishment.”

#62 – hey, the people trashing Yoko didn’t know John either. Maybe they were both bad people. Or both lovely people. I always thought she seemed quite interesting, with or without the “John Lennon Seal of Approval”.

…If Xeni owes Yoko an apology over the story, then Yoko owes us all apologies not only for causing the breakup of the Beatles, but for having the audacity to screech into a microphone, slap it on vinyl, and then expect us to buy it.

Hell, you can’t even *bootleg* a Yoko Ono album these days unless it’s part of a Sound Effects Collection…

Is there any possibility we are mis-reading Yoko’s statement? While it sounds like LM is applying for a sort of “sole usage” trademark on Lennon (sorry, I’m no lawyer so my terminology here is probably ridiculous), could is be possible that what is actually happening is that LM is simply attempting to get permission to use the name “Lennon” by itself (ie without saying her full name “Lennon Murphy”) in performances and sales? In which case it might still be a publicity stunt, or it might just be that she really likes her first name by itself.

Actually, upon further investigation, it appears as though LM probably already owns the trademark for the name “Lennon” and that Yoko is attempting to take it away.
Is John Lennon ever marketed as only “Lennon?” If not, I’m not sure I see the trouble.

Actually, upon further investigation, it appears as though LM probably already owns the trademark for the name “Lennon” and that Yoko is attempting to take it away.
Is John Lennon ever marketed as only “Lennon?” If not, I’m not sure I see the trouble.

“Lenon” already applied for the trademark in 2003. Yoko was informed back then and didn’t object until just now, two days before the deadline. Why wait so long? I’m going to have to agree that there is more to this story than either Lenon or Yoko are telling us. That, and that non-transparent editing if prior posts is reprehensible–like the pigs in Animal Farm painting over the rules at night with new ones.

I’ve personally communicated my respect and my regret for the lack of clarity to Ms. Ono.

As a wiser blogger/journalist once told me, sometimes speed conspires to make fools of us — the pressure to crank out lots of posts with other obligations present sometimes leads to sloppiness. I handled the original post in a less than clear way. I will try to do better next time.

She is indeed a gracious lady and a class act, and her subsequent personal email to me on the matter humbled me greatly.

“Yoko Ono once again shows that she is a class act and a cool lady, through and through.”

…Luckily for me, because I’m sitting here missing 1/4th of my right foot amputatated, I have access to lots of nice drugs for pain and nausea. Which is why the sheer audacity of that statement failed to kill me upon reading it.

After reading this a few times, I think what actually might be happening here is that Yoko IS in fact pursuing some course of legal action (perhaps not a law suit specifically) against usage of the name “Lennon” by itself. She claims that she is not attempting to stop LM from using the name “Lennon Murphy” but she does NOT claim ANYWHERE that she isn’t attempting to stop LM from using the name “Lennon” – quite the opposite in fact.
Basically all the letter does is expel the notion of LM being sued – my guess is that perhaps LM did in fact get a “cease and desist” or similar legal letter from Yoko and may have (too hastily) interpreted it as a law suit, but it really does appear that some sort of legal proceedings are being taken on exactly the original issue that seemed upsetting in the original post.

This is admittedly some conjecture on my part, but seriously folks, I think we all might be skimming over Yoko’s letter here way too quickly.

Many folks here seem to be missing the most important part Ms. Murphy’s trademark grant, which is the exclusivity:

‘…Yoko did not believe it was fair that Ms. Murphy be granted the exclusive right to the “Lennon” trademark in relation to musical and entertainment service.’

You can easily imagine a future John Lennon related musical project (think the Beatles’ “Love” show currently playing in Vegas). There is no way John Lennon’s estate is going to give up the right to use the name “Lennon” for such an endeavor.

Evil Jim: That other Beatle was named McCartney, not McCarthy. Your joke would have been better if youâ€™d gotten the right name.

Mikelotus: I donâ€™t have a direct link, but I was looking over some SG photos a friend had sent me and she did indeed pose nude and is nothing to write home about. Her poses made her look more like some kind of wounded antelope with way too much eyeliner. Canâ€™t blame her for trying a different line of work, though she seems to suck at that too.

Kuanes: She must have had recent augmentation. The photos in SG show only relatively normal sized, albeit not small, â€œtracts of land.â€

I think we can all agree that it is pretty downright devious and/or clueless of LM to claim that her livelihood depends on exclusive rights to a name that was bestowed upon her in homage, even to the exclusion of the original. If she thinks she was named after John Lennon the bread-baker, she would do well to be reminded her parents would never have heard of him had he not also been a â€œpop starâ€. These same parents, who named her in reverence of one of the major icons of their time, should slap the shit out of her, though I donâ€™t think it would help.

I don’t understand what isn’t clear here. It seems that Lennon Murphy told Yoko that she intended to go by “Lennon”, Yoko said that sounded fine (not that she needed Yoko’s permission, but it was nice of her to ask), but then Lennon Murphy applied to have “Lennon” trademarked, which is an altogether different matter.

Anyone can see how having a little-known performer go by “Lennon” wouldn’t have much impact on the John Lennon Legacy, but for Yoko and John’s sons (one of whom is also Yoko’s son) to be unable to use the name “Lennon” in musical matters is rather absurd, and obviously unfair.

And I just have to point out Lennon Murphy’s ridiculous comment in the original post: “This could very well mean the career that I have worked so hard at, the one you all have believed in, may come to an end.” Whatever.

All the relevant information regarding Ono’s legitimate objection was already present in the original post, and yet still random outbreaks of FUD are continuing (albeit at a mercifully reduced level now).

“It seems that Lennon Murphy told Yoko that she intended to go by “Lennon”, Yoko said that sounded fine”

No. This is NOT the issue; people are still NOT reading Yoko’s statement properly.
The correct statement is that Lennon Murphy told Yoko that she intended to go by “Lennon Murphy” and Yoko was okay with that.
It appears the issues arose when LM started going by “Lennon.”

I looked at the PDF linked to in the original post where Yoko Ono is protesting the LENNON trademark for the goods & services of music. In her protest for mark confusion she is using as priority a trademark of JOHN LENNON in the goods & services of sunglasses. I think her trademark attorneys are not so good. This is the kind of trademark a pointy headed attorney at the sunglass company filed. Not so much protection for LENNON in the music G&S.

Just for the record I think all of this is trademark stuff is majorly broken but it is what we have.

Word Mark JOHN LENNON
Goods and Services IC 009. US 002 026. G & S: eyewear products comprised of all types of eyeglasses, sunglasses and eyewear accessories; namely, eyeglass cases, chains, frames, and lenses. FIRST USE: 19901215. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19910130
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Serial Number 74237180
Filing Date January 13, 1992
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 16, 1993
Registration Number 1769796
Registration Date May 11, 1993
Owner (REGISTRANT) Lennon, Yoko Ono DBA executrix of the John Lennon Estate, a New York estate INDIVIDUAL JAPAN 1 West 72nd Street New York NEW YORK 10023

The fact that JOHN LENNON has apparently only been registered as a trademark for sunglasses is a pretty good indication that you don’t need to hold an exclusive frickin’ trademark on your name to have a successful career in music.

I think the Murphy quote at the end of the original post was very telling: “Lennon is my first name by birth and I am regualarly [sic] asked if I was named after the Beatle, having always replied no. My mother named me after “John Lennon that wrote songs, painted, and baked bread with his son”. She named me for the man, not the pop star.”
WTF? Does she schizophrenically separate herself as LM the Suicide Girl, LM the “pop star” and LM who picks up her dog’s poop in the park? If she wasnâ€™t trying to capitalize on the rock legendâ€™s name, she should have used the name â€œMurphy.â€ Remember: despite all the free publicity she’s getting from this, LM pronounced phonetically pretty much sums her up. Go Yoko!

Refreshing to see a legal challenge over IP executed with grace and humanity, as Yoko’s evidently was. Kudos to Yoko for having some personal thought on this matter and not just leaving it to pit bull lawyers.